The Department of Road Traffic Services (DRTS), whose personnel are Vehicle Inspection Officers (VIOs) has said that it would ‘certainly’ appeal a judgement barring it from imposing fines or impounding vehicles of offending motorists.
In a phone interview with The PUNCH on Thursday, the acting Director of the DRTS, Deborah Osho lamented the growing ‘lawlessness’ in the Federal Capital Territory since the court ruling.
On Thursday, the Court of Appeal (Abuja Division) affirmed the lower court judgement barring the DRTS and the VIOs from stopping motorists, confiscating vehicles, or imposing fines on road users.
In a unanimous decision by a three-member panel, the appellate court held that there was no basis to overturn the Federal High Court’s ruling of October 16, 2024, which prohibited VIO officials from harassing motorists.
The appeal, filed by the DRTS challenging the lower court ruling, was dismissed for lacking merit, in a lead judgement by Justice Oyejoju Oyewumi.
Reacting to the verdict, Osho said: ‘We will certainly appeal. As a correspondent, do you see what is happening in the city right now? Don’t you see how dirty the city is?
‘I don’t know why we Nigerians don’t like to be corrected. Just look at Airport Road (Abuja), they have turned that place practically into a one-way. You cannot enforce, you cannot impound, but if you give them a ticket, they won’t come to pay. What do you want us to do? The thing is not funny’.
Osho further disclosed that despite alternative enforcement methods, such as issuing tickets, offenders owed more than N409 million, adding that traffic could not be well coordinated without strict enforcement.
He said: ‘We don’t even impound like that. What we do is, if you commit an offence, whether you take it or go away, you are already captured, and your bill will be sent to you.
‘If I give you my laptop now, we have almost N409 million not paid, because they won’t come to pay, and because we cannot enforce our arrest or do anything.
‘Have you ever seen anywhere in the world where traffic is well coordinated without enforcement, and you think it will go well’?.
Justice Nkeonye Maha of a Federal High Court had earlier ruled that no law empowered VIOs to stop, impound, confiscate, seize, or impose fines on motorists.
The ruling followed a fundamental rights suit filed by a public interest lawyer, Abubakar Marshal.
He told the court that VIOs forcefully stopped him at Jabi District on 12 December 2023, and confiscated his vehicle without lawful justification.
He asked the court to declare their actions wrongful, oppressive, unlawful, and a gross violation of his fundamental rights.
In granting the reliefs, Justice Maha restrained the DRTS, its agents, and assignees from impounding or confiscating vehicles or imposing fines on motorists, describing such actions as oppressive and unlawful.
The court also issued a perpetual injunction preventing further violations of Nigerians’ rights to freedom of movement, presumption of innocence, and the right to own property.
The judge held that only a court of competent jurisdiction could impose sanctions or fines on motorists.
She further ruled that the respondents had violated the applicant’s constitutional right to own property under Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
The court held that the respondents lacked statutory powers to impound vehicles or impose fines, stressing that doing so breached motorists’ rights to fair hearing, freedom of movement, and presumption of innocence under Sections 6(6)(b), 36(1), 36(8), 36(12), 41, and 42 of the Constitution, as well as Articles 2, 7(3), 12, and 14 of the African Charter.
Marshal, represented by a legal team led by Mr. Femi Falana, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, had sought N500 million in general and aggravated damages, and an apology in three national newspapers.
The court awarded N2.5 million in damages.
The respondents included the DRTS, its Director, the Abuja Area Commander, identified as Mr. Leo, the team leader, Mr. Solomon Onoja, and the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the defendants lodged an appeal, which the Court of Appeal dismissed.
